He is treated as a demigod by his own people. Why would he go anywhere? I certainly can’t see him coming to the US.
China is probably the best bets for shutting him down. It sounds like China is finally reaching the point where they won’t protect him anymore. Short of leveling whatever city Kim Jung-Un is in, what is the best path to doing it? Could China lure him out? Assuming he can be removed without causing a war, what next? Could the populace really be expected to accept a South Korean government after being taught to fear them for so long? (On the other hand, given the defections, maybe that’s not so far fetched.)
Perhaps the approach is, lure (or kidnap) Kim to China to a wonderful life in exile, approach NK with food, medicine, resources, and the modern conveniences and overwhelm them with kindness, while dismantling their nuclear program. If China supports it.
it took a while but it seems they are now following through. The Coal that china was buying from NK is an important source of hard currency for NK and that will have a real impact.
“Coal accounted for a third of all official North Korean exports in 2015, making up a large part of their income”
One question I’ve had and was thinking of starting a thread on but figured I’d ask here is…why are some conservatives seemingly obsessed with doing nuclear testing and fretting that we are somehow falling behind in the great race (which isn’t happening as far as I know) to produce new, better nukes? I mean…first off, what would the point be of newer better nukes? I guess you could make nukes more efficient or maybe have longer shelf lives or something, but it’s not like they are going to blow up better. We already know how to make them have bigger booms in smaller packages. I guess we could fit more on a rocket, but…to what end? What is the point?
I ask because recently in a series of holiday/weekend discussions with some of my conservative friends and family this subject has repeatedly come up (and since I know they get their news exclusively from Fox et al I figure it must be some sort of meme going around in the conservative news sphere or talk show scene). And they are quite vehement about it. When I ask them why it would be important they talk about Russia and China building new nukes. When I point out that, afaik, both are building or working on new delivery systems, not the payload I get blank looks or they say I don’t get it…America is falling behind in the building new nukes race and we NEED TO CATCH UP!! When I say this makes no sense, since this is technology we’ve had for half a century, have done extensive testing on in the past and have simulation data to work with they say you can’t simulate this stuff…YOU NEED TO BLOW SHIT UP!
So, I’m asking? What’s up with this? Where is this stuff coming from? I get that some folks think our stockpile needs testing because of the uncertainty of the weapons we have actually working when and if needed. That’s a valid thing, though I don’t think we need to take some out and blow them up to test them for reliability.
But that’s not what these guys seem to be talking about.
Why would there ever be any more tests? The one thing that we’ve discovered beyond doubt over the last fifty years is, THEY WORK. If it’s true that we can destroy the world with nukes 7 times over, then it follows that only 1/7th, or approximately 14%, of our nuclear weapons have to work in order to do the job of exterminating mankind.
It’s coming from several sources in our government. A recent U.S. State Department report found Russia had violated obligations “not to possess, produce, or flight-test” a ground-launched cruise missile with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km (310-3,420 miles), “or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles”. The Pentagon’s nuclear policy document released in February said that in response to Russia’s violation, the United States would start reviewing its own options for conventional, ground-launched, intermediate-range missile systems.
Mattis and others (eg General Curtis Scaparrotti, NATO’s SACEUR) have indicated that we need to take positive steps towards confronting Russia. In late October, Trump said Russia had violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and announced that he intended to pull out of the treaty. Of America’s own nuclear arsenal, Trump said: “Until people come to their senses, we will build it up.”
And so this is the end result of America’s experiment with Government by Fuckwit. Russia is undeniably belligerent, credible sources have found Russia in violation of treaties, and a response may be required. However, that response will be decided by a demented narcissist who is pathologically incapable of telling the truth. Is he telling the truth this time? Is there a genuine deficiency in America’s nuclear arsenal that actually needs to be corrected? Who the fuck knows?
If we had a President with a shred of credibility, he might present his case in a cogent manner, we would have a public debate, and Americans might trust in his ability to decide on the correct course of action. But since that has become impossible, we are in a position where we are faced with what may be an actual emergency and yet incapable of trusting anything our President has to say regarding it.
As for your acquaintances, it sounds to me like they need to either specify exactly what capability we lack or kindly STFU.
Well, I knew about most of that, and it still doesn’t seem to answer the question. We can build up our own arsenal if that would even be necessary (:dubious:)…it’s not like we’ve forgotten how to build nukes or that we don’t have libraries full of data and simulations to work from to build new ones. As for the rest, that seems to be, again, a launch vehicle issue, which certainly IS something Russia is supposedly working on. But it doesn’t have anything, as far as I can see, to do with the payload. What would we accomplish with some new generation of nuclear weapons? We can already dial up the yield…in fact, we actually have variable yield nukes where we can, on the fly (sort of) dial up or down the yield. We can already make them more powerful. And I don’t see an issue with making them smaller, if that’s the issue…we have done that and, I suppose, could go smaller if we really wanted too without any new generation of the things. Like I said, I’m baffled…I don’t get it. New launch vehicles with new capabilities? Yeah, I get that. But…new generation of nukes? And we are falling behind some great new nukes Russia and China are making (I asked the rather, to me, leading question of…well, how are THEY building them when they aren’t able to do full tests either? No response except to point out I’m not a nuclear physicist, as if that matters wrt the discussion, especially since they aren’t either :p).
Well…the real nitpick, IMHO, is that we don’t have the firepower to destroy the world even 1 time over. The earth will, of course, continue on it’s merry way no matter how many nukes we blow up. Even if you mean kill all life we don’t have the firepower. It’s questionable if we have the nukes to destroy even all human life, though that might be more iffy. If you mean ‘destroy our current civilization’ then, I suppose, we do have that level of firepower wrt nukes, and you could pick nits about how many times over we have to be able to do that task (could be hundreds of times, as even a handful of nukes in the right place could bring our civilization down).
True, but “destroy the world” has always been parlance for “destroy human civilization”. Remember, in an all out nuclear exchange, there is going to be a prolonged “nuclear winter” on top of all the destruction and all of the fallout that is going to last for years and years. That will, in turn, very likely trigger another Ice Age. What’s left of humanity after all of that wouldn’t be much to speak of, that’s for sure.
Oh, to be sure. I think that destroying our current civilization would require only a fraction of the total nukes. But if we are picking nits and all I thought I’d point that out wrt how many times over we can destroy…something…all depends on how you define that something, such as what, exactly, ‘destroy the world’ is defined as. Which is what nit-pickery is all about!
